No. 4.] POULTRY FEEDING. 419 



sities in results that are found when we attempt to make out a case 

 for any method by attributing to it alone results in cases in which it is 

 a factor. It is impossible to prove the superiority of a method or a 

 breed by a comparison of individual instances. The surest test is the 

 test of time and general use. That test operates slowly, and leaves us 

 always with a measure of uncertainty as to the final result; but in 

 compensation it also gives us — if we heed it — caution in accepting 

 results of new methods prematurely. 



The situation with regard to the dry feeding of poultry to-day is 

 that, without approaching a full demonstration of their claims for 

 that method, the advocates of dry feeding have materially benefited 

 many who were not successful in the use of the mash system^ and have 

 emphasized a principle, which may well be termed a fundamental 

 principle in feeding, that had fallen into general disuse among those 

 trying to feed jjoultry for best results, — that is, the very elementary 

 principle that to lay well or grow well, fowls must be well fed. 



A prominent feature of the teaching of the "balanced ration" 

 advocates was the necessity of avoiding over-feeding. So insistently 

 were the evils of over-feeding proclaimed, and so much were poultry- 

 men impressed by this preaching, that among those trying to feed 

 right over-feeding had become extremely rare, while it was a common 

 thing to find poultry men feeding rations just short enough of what 

 they should be to give good egg yields. So general have I found this, 

 that, beginning some years ago, in every case where a correspondent 

 wrote asking what was the matter with his hens, that would not lay, 

 in which I could find no special cause for failure, I have advised to 

 feed a little more, and it is quite surprising how often this happens to 

 give the results wanted. 



Now, the dry feeding system, as usually advocated and practised, 

 keeps food before the fowls all the time. They need never be hungry. 

 And in nearly all cases where dry feeding has given better results 

 than a system including a wet mash, and the wet mash used was of 

 good consistency, I think it will be found that the dry feeding system 

 owes its apparent superiority to the simple fact that by it the hens 

 get enough to eat. 



And that, as a matter of fact, is the prime factor in successful feed- 

 ing. There are other points to consider. Hens must have exercise, 

 and there must be some variety in their food, but above all, if we wish 

 good development and good egg production, there must be abundance 

 of food. And, from what I have seen of results of many different 

 methods of feeding, I would say give abundance with variety; but, 

 if there is a choice between variety without abundance and abundance 

 without variety, the latter is to be preferred. In abundance of food 

 without variety we may get results and wear the fowl out quickly; 

 in the other way we are more likely to keep a fowl just short of profit- 

 able performance. 



